People v White (Jahmon)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v White (Jahmon) 2016 NY Slip Op 51484(U) Decided on October 19, 2016 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 19, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570692/15

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jahmon White, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Julio Rodriguez III, J.), rendered April 17, 2015, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of one count of criminal contempt in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Julio Rodriguez III, J.), rendered April 17, 2015, affirmed.

Defendant's present challenge to the knowing, voluntary and intelligent nature of his guilty plea, to the extent preserved for appellate review, is without merit. The record reveals that Criminal Court vacated defendant's initial guilty plea, directed a second call to afford defendant a further opportunity to consult with counsel and, during the plea allocution conducted later that day, defendant was fully advised of, and understood, the consequences of his plea. Accordingly, we conclude that defendant's plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375 [2015]). Contrary to defendant's present claim, his utterances, viewed in their entirety, did not engender significant doubt regarding the voluntariness of the plea to require the court to conduct a further inquiry (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 19, 2016

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.